Urgent Item Planning and EP Committee 13 July 2019 Application Ref: 19/00168/FUL Proposal: Demolition of existing public house and erection of new children's nursery (D1 use) with associated car parking and landscaping (resubmission). Site: The Fenman , Whittlesey Road, Stanground, Peterborough Applicant: Mr Dan Slipper Alpha Kindergarten Stanground Ltd. Agent: Mr Tim Slater 3D Planning Ltd. Site visit: 04.04.2019 Case officer: Mr D Jolley Telephone No. 01733 453414 E-Mail: [email protected] Recommendation: That Committee resolves NOT to contest the air quality reason for the refusal of the application. 1 Report At its meeting on 11 June 2019, the committee resolved (contrary to the officer recommendation to grant permission) to refuse planning permission for the planning application that sought permission for the demolition of existing public house and erection of new children's nursery. The main part of the committee report from that meeting is in Appendix 1. One of the reasons for refusal related to air quality and was as follows: The nursery is located near to a petrol filling station and to a road junction which is very busy during peak periods with slow and standing traffic and consequently it is considered that the children attending the facility are likely to be subject to a lower air quality (than would be experienced away from such sources) to the detriment of their health and wellbeing. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy LP17: Amenity Provision in the Peterborough Local Plan 2019 (version pending adoption at Council in July 2019) and the objective of paragraph 91 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019). Officers have been advised that the applicant wishes to appeal the decision. Consequently officers have liaised with the Environmental Health Team on the evidence available to help defend the reason for refusal. The advice given is as follows: 1. That the site does not fall within any air quality management area and for this reason, the issue of air quality was not specifically referred to in the Environmental Health comments on the application. 2. There are no exceedences of the air quality objectives for Benzene (associated with the loading and unloading of petrol fuel) in all of England and Wales. 3. That the petrol filling station is in compliance with the latest government standards in DCCORPT_2018-04-04 1 3 terms of fuel vapour recovery (Stage Two Petrol Vapour Recovery, PVRII).. 4. There are specific national screening criteria for the review and assessment of air quality. Using these screening tools, the following are screened out and do not require further assessment or monitoring: - Petrol stations fitted with PVRII - Junctions with less than 10,000 vehicles per day, Whittlesey Road/Coneygree Road junction has less than 10,000 vehicles per day (LAQM TG.16) 5. The air quality standards (as referred to above re air quality management areas, air quality objectives for benzene / vapour recovery and vehicle pollution on roads) take into account the effects of each associated pollutant on human health including the effects on sensitive subgroups such as children. 6. Consequently, although the site will perform worse in terms of air quality compared to a location away from either a traffic junction or a filling station, there is little evidence to suggest that the proposal is unacceptable on air quality grounds. Should an appeal against the refusal of planning permission be formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the applicant would be entitled to apply for an award of costs to be made against the Council (even if no such application for costs is made the Inspectorate may elect to make an award) . Officers consider that in the light of the additional advice from Environmental Health and in order to avoid an award of costs against the Council (or at least keep it to a minimum), the air quality reason for refusal should not be defended. 2 Recommendation That Committee resolves not to defend reason 1 (relating to air quality) given in the refusal of planning permission ref: 19/00168/FUL. DCCORPT_2018-04-04 2 4 APPENDIX 1 – COMMITTEE REPORT OF JUNE 2019 (From Section 4) 4 Consultations/Representations Early Years & Child Intervention Team No comments received Cambridgeshire Fire & Rescue Service No comments received Waste Management No comments received Lead Local Drainage Authority (12.03.19) As it stands, we are objecting as we require a full sustainable drainage strategy to be submitted. PCC Peterborough Highways Services (20.03.19) No objection subject to condition. PCC Tree Officer (29.03.19) Object - impact on adjacent TPO trees has not been assessed. PCC Wildlife Officer (21.02.19) No objection subject to condition. PCC Pollution Team (12.03.19) No objection subject to condition. Archaeological Officer (05.03.19) I can confirm that there are no known archaeological implications. Councillor Ray Bisby - Stanground South No comments received Councillor C Harper - Stanground South (04.04.19) Object - see report. Councillor B Rush - Stanground South (19.03.19) Object - see report Local Residents/Interested Parties Initial consultations: 37 Total number of responses: 25 Total number of objections: 13 Total number in support: 12 13 Objections and a 48 Signature petition have been received in relation to the proposal stating; Objection from Cllr Harper stating; I write as a ward councillor for Stanground South to object to this planning application to demolish the public house formally known as the Fenman and replace it with a nursery. The main reasons for my objection are the serious potential effects on resident amenity due to noise and increased DCCORPT_2018-04-04 3 5 exhaust gas pollution due to additional traffic to an already busy junction and road network. This application is contrary to planning policy because it will cause unacceptable increase in noise in what is currently primarily a very quiet retirement area. Almost every resident within a reasonable distance of the proposed nursery site is retired and at home during the daytime. They wish only to continue to be able enjoy their homes and gardens in peace. A large increase in noise levels and disturbance along with substantial increases in air pollution caused by exhaust gases will I believe cause serious mental and physical health effects to nearby residents, not to mention to young lungs too. It is very disingenuous to try to compare the noise levels generated from the previous public house to that of a 78 place nursery. The hours of use were very different, the vehicles movements of a nursery will be much higher, and the majority of the year those using a public house are inside the premises. The application is clearly at odds with Peterborough's City Council's aspirations of becoming the Environment Capital of the UK because it does not promote a reduction in the need to travel and as has already been said, will lead to an increase in pollution in the local area and would detract from the quality of the environment for local residents indeed, the application documents themselves suggest the majority of parents will arrive to drop off their children by car. The nursery entrance will be very close to an already extremely busy traffic light controlled junction and one that at peak times is regularly gridlocked due to the sheer volumes of traffic passing through Stanground on route to the City Centre and back out towards Whittlesey. See evidence of such congestion in the pictures below. In addition, during high rainfall periods, Whittlesey Road experiences a huge increase in traffic due to the closure of North Bank which causes almost gridlock conditions. The application is contrary to Planning Policy PP3 line 'C' which states that - 'Planning permission should not be granted which would result in unacceptable noise and or disturbance for the occupiers or users of any nearby property or land'. The application is contrary to Planning Policy PP3 line 'F' which states that - 'Planning permission should not be granted which would result in unacceptable odour and/or pollution'. The application is contrary to Policy CS14 in that - 'The transport strategy for Peterborough is to : reduce the need to travel, especially by private car'. In summary. Whilst I accept there is a need for nursery places, that need is primarily for areas populated by residents with younger children such as the newly created Cardea development but almost every resident living near the proposed nursery site are retired and have no need for such a facility but are being as asked to accept the likely negative effects. I therefore request that planning permission is refused for the reasons given so as the residents in the local vicinity are allowed to continue to enjoy their current quality of life, peace and quiet. Objection from Cllr Rush I write to object to this planning application. The site is located on a busy junction. Vehicles will park on the grass verges, on Upton Close and the cul-de-sac opposite the site. Noise generated from the nursery will affect the properties on Upton Close that are right on the boundary. The junction is controlled by traffic lights so pollution levels will be high. Children inhaling toxic air, at such a young age, will be extremely vulnerable to DCCORPT_2018-04-04 4 6 its effects. If officers are minded to recommend approval I want it calling in and take it to committee. Neighbour objections stating; a) Access Safety The applicant’s scheme will certainly result in traffic accidents. 340 vehicle movements per day, through the entrance. We also haven't added in the lunchtime changeover movements. The access to the site would need to be turned into a one way scheme using Upton Close as the probable 'entrance' with the 'exit' from the Coneygree Road aperture.